On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 6:48 PM, Michael Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Evan Daniel wrote: > > > I think flood routing inserts opportunistically is a good idea -- > > there's no point in sending out a memory card less than full, and > > routed requests / inserts may well not be enough to fill it. > > > > My knee-jerk reaction was "flooding doesn't scale", but it's actually > worked alright for Usenet - with a couple of tweaks. First, break down the > traffic into channels and allow each node to decide which channels to carry. > Second, flood the message IDs rather than the messages, and only request the > messages you haven't seen.
What I mean is: you're preparing an 8GB memory card to send to a neighbor. You've been able to find 3GB worth of data to fulfill some of his outstanding requests. Rather than leave the other 5GB empty, you should fill it with inserts you've seen recently, even if they might not be normally worth directing to him (because of wrong location, etc). Unlike other sorts of bandwidth, it can't be retasked for transmission to a different node. Evan Daniel _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
